Laws

Error in a ruling Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 1:56:25 +0000
Rules of the trial court must be made a part of the rec- ord by bill of exceptions or order of court. Rout v Ninde, in Ind 597; Walla Walla Printing, etc, Co, v Budd, 2 Wash Ter 336 Bill of Particular S So a bill of par- ticulars attached to a declaration must, where variance is alleged, be shown by the bil L Freas v Truitt, 2 Colo489 Taking Cause from Jur Y The action of the trial judge in taking a cause from the jury is reviewable only on a bill of exception S Noble v Flower, 36 La An N 737 Postponement. Error in a ruling of a trial judge refusing to postpone a cause to be reviewed must be shown by bill of exception S Moss v Katz, 69 Tex 411 Certiorar I The action of the court : n overruling a motion to quash a writ of certiorari can only be reviewed by the bil L Hersey v Schaedel, 6 111 App 188; Van Cott v Sprague, 5 111 App 99 See article CERTIORAR I Order of Tria L The fact that a case was tried out of its proper order on the docket must appear by bill of ex- ception S Hermann v Pardridge, 79 111 471 It is also necessary to review an order of the court setting down a cause for immediate tria L Cox v Stout, 85 Ind 422 Motion for Special Judgment.

Autor of the post: Undefined

(U S) 532; Ex p Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 1:42:05 +0000
Motion for a judgment on the verdict and special findings of the jury, rulings, grounds therefor and exceptions thereto, should be embodied in the bil L Shaw v Merchants' Nat Bank, 60 Ind 83 In Salander v Lockwood, 66 Ind 285, it was held that a simple verbal motion for such judgment and an ex- ception to the ruling thereon presents that ruling to the Supreme Court without a bill of exception S Judgment on Pleading S The same is- true as to a motion for judgment on the pleading S Hinton v Brown, i Blackf (Ind) 429 Answer of JuroRThe answer made by a juror when polled must be shown by the bil L Medler v State, 26 Ind 171 Scire Facia S In a scire facias the recognizance is no part of the record unless made so by bill of exception S Davis v Co M, 4 TB Mo N (Ky) 114;. Fowler v Co M, 4 TB Mo N (Ky) 128 Rescission of Reman d So the rescis- sion of an order remanding a cause to the court of original tria L Sidener v Davis, 87 Ind 342 The Venire in a criminal case is brought up only by bill of exception S Organ v State, 26 Mis S 79 1 Alabama Paulling v Marshall, 47 Ala 270; Darden v James, 48 Ala 33; Petty v Dill, 53 Ala 641; Rolater v Rolater, 52 Ala i N Arkansa S Ashley v Stoddard, 26 Ark 653; Governor v Evans, i Ark 360; Dillard v Parker, 25 Ark 503; Anthony v Brooks, 31 Ark 725; Not a Substitute for Recor d But it should be remembered that the bill of exceptions, having the purpose above noticed, authenticates Ward v Worthingto N 33 Ark 830; Hall v Bonville, 36 Ark 491; Green v State, 38 Ark 304 Colorad O Wike v Campbell, 5 Colo127; Putnam v Sea, 8 Colo298 Florida Cato v State, 9 Fla 163; Patrick v Young, 18 Fla 50; Water- son v Seat, 10 Fla 326; Broward v State, 9 Fla 422; Proctor v Hart, 5 Fla 468; Bailey v Clark, 6 Fla 516; Dorman v Bigelow, i Fla 323; Pons -v Hart, 5 Fla 457; Gray v Belden, 3 Fla 114; Gates v Hayner, 22 Fla 325; Jones v McCallum, 21 Fla 392; Sams v King, 18 Fla 552; Pittman v My- rick, 16 Fla 692; Sedgwick v Daw- kins, 18 Fla 335 Illinoi S Randolph v Emerick, 13 111 344; Norton v Coggswell, 35 111 App 567; Wiggins Ferry Co v Peo- ple, 101 111 446; Kitchell v Burgwin, 21 111 40; Hawk v McCullough, 21 111 220; Hamlin v Reynolds, 22 111 207; Chicago, etc, RCo v Melville, 66 111 329; U S Express Co v Meints, 72 111 293; Chase v De Wolf, 69 111 47; Tower v Bradley, 66 111 189; Nichols v People, 40 111 395; Van Dusen v Pomeroy, 24 111 289; Horn v Eckert, 63 111 522; Gregory v Spencer, 3 111 App 80; Springfield F M In S Co -v Newman, 31 111 App 393; Ging v Robinson, 31 111 App 511 Indiana -State v Cooper, 103 Ind 76; Doctor v Hartman, 74 Ind 221; State v Judy, 60 Ind 138; State v Day, 62 Ind 483 Iowa Eyser v Weissgerber, 2 Iowa 463; State v Strong, 6 Iowa 72; Black v Howell, 56 Iowa 630 A'ansa S Atchison, etc, RCo v Wagner, 19 Ka N 338; Jackson v Stoner, 17 Ka N 607; Whitney v Har- ris, 21 Ka N 96; Lauer v Livings, 24 Ka N 273; McKinstry v Carter, 48 Ka N 428 KentucKy Collins v Richart, 14 Bush (Ky)62 I Marylan d Blake v Pitcher, 46 Md 453 Missour I State v Griffith, 63 Mo 545; State v Barnett, 63 Mo 301; Pendergast v Hodge, 21 Mo App 138; Swaggard v Hancock, 25 Mo 605; Bagby v Emberson, 79 Mo 140; State v White, 61 Mo 442; State v Finn, 19 Mo App 560; Bateson v Ciark, 37 Mo 34; State v Matson, 38 Mo 490; Peltz v Eichele, 62 Mo 178; State v Hitchcock, 86 Mo 231 Montana Barber v Briscoe, 8 Mont 215; Dodson v Nevitt, 5 Mont 520; Power v Gum, 6 Mont 5; Granite Mountain Mi N Co v Weinstein, 7 Mont 440; King v Sullivan, i Mont 282; Noteware v Sterns, i Mont 314; Kleinschmidt v McAndrews, 4 Mont 28; Rooney v Tong, 4 Mont 597; Sherman v Higgins, 7 Mont 479 Nebraska O'Donohue v Hendrix, 13 Neb 255; Eaton v Carruth, n Neb 231; Ray v Mason, 6 Neb 101; American Credit Foncier v Rogers, 8 Neb 34; Aultman v Home, 10 Neb 10 Ohio Howell v Fry, 19 Ohio St 556 South Dakota Plunket v Evans, 2 S Dak 434 Texa S Owens v Missouri Pac RCo, 67 Tex 679 United State S Moline Plow Co v Webb, 141 U S 622; Coughlin v Dis- trict of Columbia, 106 U S 7; Macker v Thomas, 7 Wheat. (U S) 532; Ex p Crane, 5 Pet (U S) 199 Wisconsi N Dunbarz'.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Greene County v Wilhite, 35 Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 1:27:40 +0000
Hollinshead, 10 Wi S 507 Record Certified Ti P Where the whole record is certified up in a bill of exceptions there is no judgment be- fore the court, and accordingly the bill will be dismisse d Smith v Cal- cote, 41 Mis S 656 In Arizona it is said that a complete record on appeal includes summons, pleadings, verdict, and copy of judg- ment and bills of exceptions, state- ment of facts (if required), notice of appeal, appeal bond, assignment of errors, and statement of costs, orders of the court extending time for filing statement of facts, affidavits of by- standers in aid of bill of exceptions, agreed statement if required or al- lowed by statut e Sutherland v Put- nam (Ariz., 1890); 24 Pac Rep 320 Compare Bateson v Clark, 37 Mo 34 The record proper includes, more- over, any orders substituting parties, and orders made by the judge while acting as a court. Greene County v Wilhite, 35 Mo App 40 Entrie S All proper entries made by the clerk, and all papers pertaining to a cause and filed therein and not for the action of the upper court only those proceedings which are not a part of the record propeR1 It follows, therefore, that it cannot be used to certify matters regularly embraced in the record proper, which is compiled and certified up by the cler K 2 Where Matters Improperly Embrace d When the bill of exceptions embraces matters which in regular course ought to be in the record proper, they will not be considered on appea L 3 2 Pleading S The pleadings are included in the record proper ; * relating to collateral matters, are a part of the record on appeal without a bill of exception S Kesler v Myers, 41 Ind 543; Gardner v Halstead, 71 Iowa 259 See article APPEALS, Record on Appeal, Vo L I I, p 260 Before Refere e Where a cause was tried before a practising attorney as a referee, who had kept a complete rec- ord of the proceedings, including the testimony, his rulings, and exceptions thereto duly attested, filed with the pleadings and papers in the case, the same was held in Florida to be a good substitute for a bill of exception S Stewart v Mathews, 19 Fla 752 How Error Show N But where there is no error apparent in the pleadings of the case or the record proper, error can be shown only by a bill of excep- tions, special verdict, or agreed state- ment of fact S Suydam v Williamson, 20 How (U S) 427 1 California Douglas v Dakin, 46Cal49; Cleland v Walbridge, 78 Ca L 358 Indiana Murphy v Tilly, II Ind 511; Medler v State, 26 Ind 171; Whiteside v Adams, 26 Ind 250; Ken- nedy v State, 37 Ind 355; Bell v Rinker, 29 Ind 267; Whaley v Glea- son, 40 Ind 405; Kesler v Myers, 41 Ind 543; Kellenberger v Perrin, 46 Ind 282; Bingham v Stumph, 48 Ind 97; Round v State, 14 Ind 493; Taylor v Fletcher, 15 Ind 80 Kansa S State v Carr, 37 Ka N 423 A'fntttcKy McAllister v Connecti- cut Mut L In S Co, 78 Ky 531 Wisconsi N Hogan v State, 36 Wi S 226; Haney v Clark, I Pi N (Wi S) 301; Taylor v Lucas, 43 Wi S 155 2 Nichols - U People, 40 111 395; Zimmerman v Cowan, 107 111 631; Safford v Vail, 22 111 326; Hamlin v Reynolds, 22 111 207; Wiggins Ferry Co v People, 101 111 446; Lamb v State, 73 Ga 587 As an order granting an appea L Douglas v Orr, 58 Mo 573 Judgment.

Autor of the post: Undefined

2 See also v Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 1:14:31 +0000
A judgment cannot be certified upon by a bill of exception S McKnight v Dozier, 44 Mis S 608; Moody v Nichol, 26 Mis S 109; Bar- rington -v Mississippi Cent RCo 32 Mis S 372 Amendment. As the bill of excep- tions cannot be used to certify up matters properly a part of the record proper, it cannot be used to amend the record as to matters constituting a proper part thereof Wilber v Wid- ner, i Wen d ( N Y) 55; Bay v Gum, I De N ( N Y) 108 Motion Omitte d So where error is assigned in the bill of exceptions on a motion or matter properly em- bodied in the record proper but omit- ted therein, the judgment will be af- firme d Cruce v State, 63 Ga 159 3 Anthony v Brooks, 31 Ark 725; Atchison, etc, RCo v Nicholls, 8 Colo188 Transcript Require d Accordingly the action of the trial court on the pleadings and other matters which are a part of the record proper cannot be reviewed on appeal, where they are re- cited only in a bill of exceptions, un- less made i N a transcript of the record propeRPetty v Dill, 53 Ala 641; Buckley v Wilson, 56 Ala 393 ; Sternau v Marx, 58 Ala 608; Morgan v Wing, 58 Ala 301; Ex p Knight, 61 Ala 482; Swoly v Scott, 56 Ala 555 The same rule obtains in criminal case S Ex p Knight, 61 Ala 486 Instanc e So a recital in the bill that an appeal was prayed for and granted, is noevidenceof the fact, since the tran- script should properly show the juris- dictional facts essential to the perfec- tion of an appea L Anthony S Brooks, 31 Ark 725 4 Zimmerman v Cowan, 107 111 631; Safford v Vail, 22 111 326; Joliet, etc, RCo -v Jones, 20 111 221; Gard- ner v Halstead, 71 Iowa 259 A bill of exceptions need not contain the process, the pleadings, or judgment consequently writings in evidence copied therein are brought up for review without being again copied in the bil L 1 3 Judgments On Pleading S So where the error alleged is based on a judgment rendered on the pleadings, it is reversible on appeal without a bill of exception S 2 of the record, as they are parts of the record propeRWeems v Weems, 69 Ala 105 1 Allen -v Young, 62 Ga 617 DemurreRIn considering a ruling on a demurrer the pleading can only be considered as it appears on the face of the recor d But the question as to ' whether the trial court rightly allowed an amendment should appear by the bill of exception S Lucas v State, 86 Ind 180 The demurrer, entry of its filing by the clerk, the ruling of the court thereon, and the ground of the decision in the causes assigned in the demur- rer appear necessarily in the record proper, and no bill is require d Swoly v Scott, 56 Ala 555; Lindley v Kel- ley, 42 Ind 297; Kesler v Myers, 41 Ind 543; Matlock v Todd, 19 Ind 130; State v Strong, 6 Iowa 72 Declaratio N So a question as to the sufficiency of a declaration cannot be raised by a bill of exception S Batchel- der v Batchelder, 2 Allen (Mas S) 105; Raymond v Rhodes, 135 Mas S Indictment Where the question arises on the indictment, or ruling upon a plea, motion, or the like, the judg- ment on which must appear of record, the reservation must appear on the record proper, and will not be con- sider'd where included in the bill of exceptions propeREx p Knight, 61 Ala 482; Swoly v Scott, 56 Ala 555; State v Day, 52 Ind 483 Kansa S Under the practice of Kan- sas, on appeal from the court of a jus- tice of the peace, by petition in error, the bill of exceptions should contain copies of all the pleadings filed in the cause in the court of justic e Winter v Shutter, 42 Ka N 545 2 Zimmerman v Cowan, 107 111 631; Hamlin v Reynolds, 22 111 207; Com- mercial Bank v Buckingham, 12 Ohio St 402; Weeks v Garibaldi South Gold Mi N Co, 73Cal599 Judgment on AnsweRSo a judg- ment that an answer was a sufficient answer and defense to several de- mands of the petition, and that, plain- tiff refusing to plead further, he take nothing by this writ and go hence without delay, etc, is reviewable with- out a bill of exception S Swaggard v, Hancock, 25 Mo App 605 Judgment on DemurreRSo a judg- ment pronounced on a demurrer may be reviewed without a bill of excep- tion S Hamlin v Reynolds, 22 111 207 But a Motion for Judgment upon answer filed is not reviewable without a bill of exception S Swaggard v Hancock, 25 Mo App 597 Judgment non Obstante Veredict O Upon appeal from a rendition of judg- ment non obstante veredicto, defend- ant admits that the evidence is suffi- cient to warrant the special findings of fact, also made upon certain inter- rogatories, and no bill of exceptions is required to review the motio N Di- mick v, Chicago, etc, RCo 80 111 340 Indiana So under Rev StatIndi- ana, 1881, 628 (Rev Stat1894, 640), the refusal of a judgment non ob- stante veredicto upon answers to inter- rogatories is reviewable upon the record proper without a bill of excep- tion S Carger v Fee (Ind, 1894), 39 N E Rep 93 Judgment by Confessio N Where a judgment is confessed ex parte under a warrant of attorney in vacation, the papers filed constitute a part of the record proper without a bill of excep- tion S Stein v Good, 115 111 93; Schmidt v Bauer, 33 111 App 92; Durham v Brown, 24 111 93 In Ter M On the other hand, where the judgment of confession is entered in term time, the warrant of attorney, affidavit of execution, plea of confession, and note upon which judgment is confessed, must be brought up by a bill of exception S Roundy v Hunt, 24 111 598; Magher v Howe, 12 111 379; Waterman v Caton, 55 111 94; Schmidt v Bauer, 33 111 App 92 Judgment on Special Finding S A bill of exceptions is not necessary to review a judgment rendered on special 4 Motion S The rule that a bill of exceptions is not necessary where the facts to show error appear in the record proper, applies to motions founded on facts apparent of record, 1 as a motion in arrest of judgment. 2 See also v Where Bill Required, 4 Motions Generally, supr A 5 Other Instance S In further passing upon this question as to what is and what is not required in a bill of exceptions, the courts have applied the foregoing rules to summons and return, 3 copy findings, as the facts disclosing the alleged error are already in the recor d Harner v Batdorf, 35 Ohio St 113 Louisiana In Louisiana an excep- tion cannot be taken to a final judg- ment.

Autor of the post: Undefined

State, 14 Ind 493; Indianapolis Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 0:55:20 +0000
The only remedy is an appeal in the form prescribed by law; conse- quently a bill of exceptions is not the proper form for the revie W The final judgment can only be affirmed or reversed on a statement of facts or special verdict of a jur Y Bujac v Mayhew, 3 Martin ( La) 614; Fromen- tin v Prieur, 3 Martin ( La) 215; Goodwin z Chesneau, 3 Martin ( La) 412; Ferguson v Bacon, 12 Martin ( La) 303; Harrison v Mogee, 3 Mar- tin ( La) 397; Poydras v Robillard, 4 Martin ( La) 174; Taylor v Porter, 3 Martin ( La ) 423; Moore v Maxwell, 2 Martin, N S ( La) 251; Fagot v David, 4 Martin ( La) I ; Duverny v Lafon, 4 Martin ( La) 96; Shewell v Stone, 12 Martin ( La) 386 1 Nichols v People, 40 111 395; Baker v People, 105 111 452; Chand- ler v State (Ind, 1895), 39 N E Rep 445; State v Cooper, 103 Ind 75; Freshour v Logansport, etc, Turn- pike Co, 104 Ind 463; Doctor S Hart- man, 74 Ind 221; Redinbo v Fretz, 99 Ind 458 Evidence in Motio N But recitals in a motion properly embraced in the record proper cannot act as a substi- tute for statements of a bill of excep- tion S Clouser v Ruckman, 104 Ind 589 So that affidavits or other mat- ters of evidence properly brought up by a bill of exceptions cannot be au- thenticated by recitals in the motion for new trial embodied in the tran- script. Indiana Clouser v Ruckman, 104 Ind 588; Compton v State, 89 Ind 338; Powers v State, 87 Ind 144; Chambers v Butcher, 82 Ind 508; Marks v Jacobs, 76 Ind 216; Horton *v Wilson, 25 Ind 316; Taylor v Fletcher, 15 Ind 80; Indianapolis, etc, Co z/Wyatt, 16 Ind 204; Round . State, 14 Ind 493; Indianapolis, et C Gravel Road Co v Christian, 93 Ind 360; Thompson v White, 18 Ind 373; Whiteside v Adams, 26 Ind 250; Knox County v Montgomery, 109 Ind 69 Iowa Herring v State, i Iowa 205; Pharo v Johnson, 15 Iowa 560; Hart v Foley, 67 Iowa 407 Missour I Holt v Simmons, 14 Mo App 450; Robinson v Suter, 15 Mo App 599; Berkley v Kobes, 13 Mo App 502 2 Nichols v People, 40 111 395; Daniels v Denver, 2 Colo669 In Indiana, however, in a recent case it was distinctly held that a motion in arrest of judgment, and the ruling thereon, cannot be made part of the record by a mere order of court and without a bill of exception S Chand- ler v State (Ind, 1895), 39 N E Rep 444 Motion to Quas H The bill of excep- tions need not show an exception to the ruling of the court on a motion to quash an indictment; it is reviewable on the record proper, Baker v Peo- ple, 105 111 452; except where the motion is made for causes not appar- ent on the face of the record, where the motion, ruling thereon, exceptions thereto, and affidavits on which it is based must be brought in by a bill of exception S State v Wall, 15 Mo 208; State v Thruston, 83 Mo 271 3 Summons and Retur N In Indiana, where there is an appearance to an action the summons and return are held to constitute no part of the rec- ord unless made so by a bill of com- plaint.

Autor of the post: Undefined

So the interrogatories Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 0:38:33 +0000
But where there is no appear- ance to an action, the summons and return are properly a part of the rec- or d Jeffersonville, etc, RCo v Ross, 35 Ind 108; Taylor v Fletcher, 15 Ind 80; Stanton v Woodcock, 19 Ind 273; Cincinnati, etc, RCo v Street, 50 Ind 225 of a special tax levy, 1 findings, 8 opinion of the court, 3 a claim against a decedent's estate, 4 an award, 5 injunction proceedings, 6 an agreed statement, 7 and to other matter S 8 VI I WHAT THE BILL MUST SHOW SUFFICIENCY 1 In General ErroRAs, in all appellate proceedings, the duty rests upon the appellant or party claiming to have been prejudiced to prove the error alleged, 9 he must, where he relies upon the bill of excep- tions, show by means of it the error complained of, clearly and 1 Special Tax Lev Y A copy of a special tax levy although certified by the clerk is no part of the record propeRWatts v McLean, 28 111 App 2 Finding S In Illinois where the bill fails to set out the findings and judgment of the court, and to show that they are properly excepted to, no questions arising thereon can be con- sidere d Everett v Collinsville Zinc Co, 41 111 App 552; Lawrence County Nat Bank v Le Moyne, 127 111 253; Martin v Foulke, 114 111 206; Graham v People, 115 111 566 But in California the question whether the findings sustain the judg- ment as rendered may be raised with- out a bill of exception S Thompson v Hancock, 51Cal No See article EXCEPTIONS AND OBJECTION S In Minnesota findings of fact and conclusions of law, on trial by cour f without a jury, become part of the rec- ord without a "case" or bill of ex- ception S Farnham v Thompson, 34 Min N 330 3 Opinio N An opinion of the court cannot be made a substitute for " sep- arate findings of fact and conclusions of law found," required by a statute, by including it in a bill of exception S Empire Trans P Co v Blanchard, 31 Ohio St 650 4 Claim against Decedent's Estat e Where, on appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a claim against a decedent's estate, a certified copy of the allowance or disallowance when filed becomes a part of the record of the trial court, the question whether the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations may be reviewed in the record proper without a bill of excep- tion S Boyce v Foote, 19 Wi S 199 5 Awar d A submission and award filed to make the award part of the judgment are brought up on the record propeRBuntain v Curtis, 27 111 374 Where a statute provides that, on appeal from a judgment entered upon an award, certified copies of the orig- inal affidavits upon which any appli- cation in relation to such award was founded, and of all other affidavits and papers relating to such application, shall be annexed to and be returned with the record of the judgment, all the affidavits and testimony, where a minute thereof is made and filed by the arbitrator, are before the appellate court without a bill of exception S Dundon v Starin, 19 Wi S 261 6 Injunction Proceedin g Where the application for the injunction is heard upon the bill and answer, and the ex- hibits attached to each of them, they are part of the record in the case, and need not be copied into the bill of ex- ception S Jordan v Gaulden, 73 Ga 202 7 Agreed Statement. In Ohio an agreed statement of facts becomes part of the record without a bill of ex- ception S McGonnigle v Arthur, 27 Ohio St 251; Clinton Bank v Ayres, 16 Ohio 282; Brown v Mott, 22 Ohio St 150, overruling Virginia Bank v Chillicothe Bank, 16 Ohio 170; Ache- son v Sutliff, 18 Ohio 122 8 Assignment of Error S Unless a statute so requires, a bill of exceptions need not contain an assignment of er- ror S Reay v Butler, 69Cal572 Where required, but not contained, the errors will be deemed waive d Vel- vin v Hall, 78 Ga 136 See article AS- SIGNMENT OF ERRORS, Vo L I I, p 920, Garnishment. So the interrogatories to and answers of a garnishee are part of the record propeRRankin v Si- monds, 27 111 352; Brainard v Sim- mons, 58 Iowa 464 Confessions in Criminal Cas e What transpired before the court on the question of admitting confessions in a criminal case is not a proper part of the recor d Valentine v State, 77 Ga 470 Nor are interrogatories rejecte d De Pauw v Kaiser, 77 Ga 176 9 Proctor v Hart, 5 Fla 468 See article APPEALS, Vo L I I, p 499 affirmatively ;* and he must further show, in order to have relief, that such error was prejudicia L 2 See article APPEALS, Vo L I I, P 499 1 Alabama Shelton z/St Clair, 64 Ala 565; Johnson v Ballew, 2 Port (Ala) 29; Holmes v Gayle, i Ala 517; Duffee v Pennington, I Ala 506; Stone v Stone, i Ala 582; Knapp v Mc- Bride, 7 Ala 19; Brazier v Burt, 18 Ala 201; Schooner Southron v O'Riley, 21 Ala 228; King v Croch- eron, 14 Ala 822; Seawell v Henry, 6 Ala 226; Kirksey v Dubose, 19 Ala 44; Sacket v McCord, 23 Ala 851; Gotten v Bradley, 38 Ala 506; Greene v Tims, 16 Ala 541; Phillips v, Beene, 16 Ala 720; Ex p McCrary, 22 Ala 65; Powell v State, 25 Ala 21; Davis v State, 17 Ala 415; State v Schuessler, 3 Ala 410; Pierson v State, 12 Ala 149 Connecticut Hoey v Hoey, 36 Con N 392; Watson v Watson, 10 Con N 75; Picket v Allen, 10 Con N 146 Georgia Reinhart v Miller, 22 Ga 402; Augusta, etc, RCo v McEl- murry, 24 Ga 75; Heard v McKee, 26 Ga 332; Cleghorn v Love, 24 Ga 591; Dunagan v Dunagan, 38 Ga 554; Taylor v Flint, 35 Ga 124; Cowles v Clark, 3 Ga 382; Stubbs v Central Bank, 7 Ga 258; Doebler v Waters, 30 Ga 344; Hays v Slade, 65 Ga 570; Sevvell v Conkle, 64 Ga 436 Illinoi S Garrity v Hamburger Co (111, 1891), 28 N E Rep 743; Monroe v Snow, 33 111 App 230 Indiana Moore v Hyde, 51 Ind 475; Dawson v Hemphill, 50 Ind 422; Lucas v Marine, 40 Ind 289; Bosley v Farquar, 2 Blackf (Ind)6i; Jones v Doe, i Ind 109; Rhea v Crunk (Ind App, 1895), 39 N E Rep 879; Eichel v Bower, 2 Ind App 84; Gish v Gish, 7 Ind App 104 Kansa S Eastman v Godfrey, 15 Ka N 341 KentucKy Inglish v Co M, Litt Se L Ca S (Ky)4i8; Harrison v Baker, i J J Marsh (Ky) 317; Tipper v Co M, i Mete (Ky) 6 Louisiana Gray v Thomas, 18 La An N 412; State v Ladd, 10 La An N 271 Maine Harvey v Ridge, 73 Me 316; Belmont v Morrill, 73 Me 231; Holbrook v Knight, 67 Me 244; John- son -v Day, 78 Me 224; Wells v County Com'rs, 79 Me 522; Webster v Calden, 55 Me 165; Harriman v Sawyer, 67 Me 442; Allen v Law- rence, 64 Me 175; Darling v Dodge, 36 Me 370; Higgins v Downs, 75 Me 346; Pullen v Glidden, 68 Me 559; Comstock v Smith, 23 Me 202; Bry- ant v Couillard, 32 Me 520; Thomas- ton v Warren, 28 Me 289; Marshall v Oakes, 51 Me 308; Brackett v Per- sons Unknown, 53 Me 238; Lawrence v Chase, 54 Me 196; Gilman v Emery, 54 Me 460; Dennen v Haskell, 45, Me 430; Hovey v Hobson, 55 Me 256; Woodward v Robinson, 67 Me 565; Merrill v Merrill, 67 Me 70; State v Bennett, 75 Me 590 Missour I Bartlett v Draper, 3 Mo 488; Belts v Magoon, 85 Mo 580 Nebraska O'Dea v State, 16 Neb 241; Michel v Ware, 3 Neb 229 Nevad A State v Roderigas, 7 Nev 328 New Jerse Y Coxe v Field, 13 N J L 216 New York Price v Powell, 3 N Y 322; Van Gordon v Jackson, 5 John S ( N Y) 467; Frier v Jackson, 8 John S ( N Y) 495 ; Jackson -v Cadwell, i Co W ( N Y) 639; Law v Merrils, 6 Wen d ( N Y) 274; Onondaga County Mut In S Co v Minard, 2 N Y 98; Soulden v Van Rensselaer, 9 Wen d ( N Y) 293; Jackson v Roberts, n Wen d ( N Y) 422 Ohio Coil v Willis, 18 Ohio 28; Hollister v Reznor, 9 Ohio St i; Scovern v State, 6 Ohio St 288; Mc- Dougal v Fleming, 4 Ohio 388; King v Kenny, 4 Ohio 81; Armstrong v Clark, 17 Ohio 495 Pennsylvania Conrow v Schloss, 55 Pa St 37; Snowden v Warder, 3 Rawle (Pa) 101 Texa S Tucker v Smith, 68 Tex 473- Ver Mont Richardson v Denison, i Ai K ( Vt) 210; Adams v Ellis, i Ai K ( Vt) 24; Eaton v Houghton, I Ai K ( Vt) 380; Stearns v Warner, 2 Ai K ( Vt) 26; Poultney v Glover, 23 Vt 328 West VirginiaPatton v Elk River Nav Co, 13 W Va 260 Wisconsi N Cutler v Hurlbut, 29 Wi S 152; Pelton v Blooming Grove, 3 Wi S 310 United State S Bingham v Cabbot, 3 Dal L (U S)38 2 Alabama Holmes v Gayie, I Ala 517 2 Objection S The bill of exceptions must show that timely objections were made to the proceeding alleged to be erroneous, 1 and that the grounds thereof were specifically and clearly state d 2 See article EXCEPTIONS AND OBJECTION S Georgia Taylor v Flint, 35 Ga 124 Illinoi S Gaffield v Scott, 33 111 App 318 Kansa S Knox v Noble, 25 Ka N 449; Eastman v Godfrey, 15 Ka N KentucKy Tipper v Co M, i Mete (Ky) 6; Harrisons v Baker, i J J Marsh (Ky) 317 Maine State v Bennett, 75 Me Massachusett S Co M v Pierce, II Gray (Mas S) 447; Co M v Carey, 108 Mas S 484; West v Lynn, no Mas S 514; Gherm v Provincetown, 105 Mas S 313; Hill v Crompton, 119 Mas S 376; Rock v Indian Orchard Mills, 142 Mas S 522 North Carolina State v Cowan, 7 Ire d (N Car) 243 1 California In re Page's Estate, 57Cal238 Indiana Blizzard v Hays, 46 Ind 166; Grubbs v Morris, 103 Ind 166 M,is--ttchusett S Waters v Gilbert, 2 Cus H (Mas S) 27; Wheeler v Rice, 8 Cus H (Mas S) 205; Richardson v Curtis, 2 Gray (Mas S) 497; Leathe v Bullard, 8 Gray (Mas S) 545; Hubbell v Bissell, 2 Allen (Mas S) 196; Cox v Jackson, 6 Allen (Mas S) 108; Burke S Savage, 13 Allen (Mas S) 408; Shaw v McGregory, 105 Mas S 96; Brown v Leach, 107 Mas S 364; Co M v Kane, 108 Mas S 423; Howard v Hay ward, 10 Met (Mas S) 408; Downs v Hawley, 112 Mas S 237; Packer v Lockman, 115 Mas S 72; Burlen v Shannon, 115 Mas S 438; Draper v Saxton, 118 Mas S 427; Britton v Worcester County, 123 Mas S 307; Ames v McCamber, 124 Mas S 85; Goodnow v Hill, 125 Mas S 587; Stone v Sargent, 129 Mas S 503; Simmonds v Lawrence Duck Co, 133 Mas S 298; Hatch v Kenny, 141 Mas S 171 Mississipp I Bowers v Ross, 55 Mis S 213; Thornton v West Feliciana RCo, 29 Mis S 145; Exum v Brister, 35 Mis S 391 Missour I Hannibal, etc, RCo v Moore, 37 Mo 338; Smith v Phil- lips, 33 Mo 43; Akers v Clarkson, 6 Mo App 601; Wittrington v Young, 4 Mo 564; Jackson v St Louis, etc, RCo, 80 Mo 147; Cowan v St Louis, etc, RCo, 80 Mo 423; Car- penter v St Louis, etc, RCo, So Mo 446 Orego N State v Dodson, 4 Oregon 64 Pennsylvania Hill v Hill, 42 Pa St 203; Wall v Building Asso C,3 Le g Gaz (Pa) 28 Texa S Galveston, etc, RCo v Gage, 3Tex 568; Cheatham v Riddle, 8 Tex 166; Hagerty v Scott, 10 Tex 532; King v Pfeiffer, 62 Tex 307; Willis v McNeill, 57 Tex 474; Wright v Thompson, 14 Tex 563; Hamilton v Rice, 15 Tex 384; Greenwade v Walling, 30 Tex 379; Whitehead v Foley, 28 Tex 293; Ann Berta Lodge v Leverton, 42 Tex 18; Spurlock z/ Sul- livan,36Tex 514; Johnson v Newman, 35Tex 167; Davis v State, i4Tex App 655; Simonton v Forrester, 35Tex5S6; Flanagan v Boggess, 46 Tex 333; Mullins v Thompson, 51 Tex 112; Herndon v Casiano, 7 Tex 333; Nor- ton v Mitchell, 13 Tex 50; Johnson v Crawl, 55 Tex 576; Underwood v Coolgrove, 59 Tex 170; Endick v Endick, 61 Tex 560; Bonart v Waag, 61 Tex 34; Missouri Pac RCo v Rountree, 2 Tex App Civ Ca S, 387; Butler v Dunagan, 19 Tex 559; Ful- ton v Bayne, 18 Tex 50; New York, etc, Steamship Cov Island City Boat- ing, etc, Asso C, 2 Tex Civ App 490; Kimmarle v Houston, etc, RCo, 76 Tex 686; Snow v Price, 2 Tex App Civ Ca S, 1343 VirginiaLaw v Law, 2 Gratt ( Va)366; Colgin v Henley, 6 Leigh ( Va) 86; Borker v Borker, 2 Gratt ( Va) 344- 2 California Thorne v Ham- mond, 46Cal530; Watson v San Fran- cisco, etc, RCo, 50Cal523 Indiana Grubbs v Morris, 103 Ind 168; Indiana, etc, RCo v Cook, 102 Ind 133; Shafer v Fergu- son, 103 Ind 90; Whipple v She- waiter, 91 Ind 114 Louisiana State v Green, 36 La An N 185; Davis v Millandon, 14 La An N 820; State v Dennett, 19 La An N 396; Bowman v Ware, 18 La 597; State v Re d, 32 La AnR819 3 Ruling S Not only must the bill of exceptions show that objections were made, but that the objections were passed upon by the court belo W 1 4 Exception S Having shown that objections were made, and that the point was ruled upon, the bill must further show that proper exceptions were taken below to the action of the court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

People, 42 111 217; Obermark Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 0:26:00 +0000
2 Mississipp I Friar v State, 3 How (Mis S) 422 Missour I Roussin v St Louis Perpetual In S Co, 15 Mo 244; Knip- per v Bechtner, 32 Mo 255; Rosen- heimz'. America In S Co, 33 Mo 230; Miller v Duff, 34 Mo 167; Gillett v Mathews, 45 Mo 307; Allen v Mans- field, 82 Mo 688 Foundation for the Bil L A party must lay a foundation for his bill by making a specific and timely objection to a proceeding deemed erroneous, obtaining a ruling thereon, and noting an exception theret O Hannat / Maas, 122 U S 26; Turner v Yates, 16 How (U S) 14; Springfield F, etc, In S Co v Sea, 21 Wal L (U S) 158 Where no exceptions are taken on the trial no bill can be take N Rich- ardson v Ship Havre, 4 Fed Rep 748 See article EXCEPTIONS AND OBJEC- TION S Judgment or Decre e So objections must usually be shown to a judgment or decree by a bill of exception S Quill v Gallivan, 108 Ind 235; Adams v La Rose, 75 Ind 471; Pennsylvania Co v Niblack, 99 Ind 149; Forsythe z/ Kreuter, 100 Ind 27; Ex p Hayes, 88 Ind I And the grounds upon which a motion to modify a judgment were made, Whipple v Shewalter, 9 Ind 114; or errors in the refusal to set aside a report of commissioners in partition, Radcliff v Radford, 96 Ind 482 1 Alabama Rives v M'Losky, 5 Stew p (Ala) 330 Florida Willingham v State, 21 Fla 761; Godwin v Bryan, 16 Fla 396; Coker v Hayes, 16 Fla 368; Southern Express Co v Van Meter, 17 Fla 783; Potsdamer v State, 17 Fla 895; Jenkins v Merritt, 17 Fla 304; Tuten v Gazan, 18 Fla 751 Georgia Cameron v Ward, 22 Ga 174 Louisiana State v Dufour, 31 La An N 840 Massachusett S Burke v Savage, 13 Allen (Mas S) 408; Baker v Gavitt, 128 Mas S 93; Childs v Franklin County, 128 Mas S 97; New Haven, etc, Co v Campbell, 128 Mas S 104; Stone v Sargent, 129 Mas S 503; Bell v Walsh, 130 Mas S 163; Simmons U Lawrence Duck Co, 133 Mas S 298; Canfield v Canfield, 112 Mas S 233; Co M v Costley, 118 Mass, i; Boston Loan Co v Myers, 143 Mas S 446; Khron v Brock, 144 Mas S 516 Texa S Anderson v Anderson, 23 Tex 639; Supreme Commandery, etc, v Rose, 62 Tex 322; Cundiff v McLean, 40 Tex 394 Grounds of the Rulin g In State v, Drew, 32 La An N 1043, it was said: The bill " should contain, as a rule, the grounds of the objection; the reasons for which it was overruled, when any are assigned; or the fact that none were given, if such be the case; but it is not essential that both the grounds of objection and reasons of the ruling should be incorporate d It is suffi- cient if the former are set forth, and the mere nature of the ruling com- plained of mentione d A bill which contains neither the grounds of objec- tion nor the reasons overruling them is defective, and is not entitled to notic e" 2 Arkansa S Byrd v Tucker, 3 Ark 451; Pelham v State Bank, 4 Ark 202; Sigment v State, 34 Ark 420; Crisman v McDonald, 28 Ark 8 Illinoi S Gould v Howe, 127 111 251 ; Wickenkamp v Wickenkamp, 77 111 92; Dickjini v Durrell, II 111 72; Illinois Cent RCo v Palmer, 24 111 43; Fries v Fries, 34 111 App 145; Jacksonville v Cherry, 39 111 App 618; Shedd z Dalzell, 30 111 App 357; Chicago, etc, RCo v Harper, 128 111 384; Chicago, etc, RCo v Yando, 127 111 214; Prindeville i'. People, 42 111 217; Obermark v People, 24 111 App 259; Rock Island v Riley, 26 111 App 171; Underbill v Mobile, etc, RCo, 40 111 App 22; Hursen v Lehman, 35 111 App 490 Indiana Creager v Langford, 87 Ind 177; Eslinger v East, 100 Ind 434; Supreme Lodge v Johnson, 78 Ind no; Cunningham v Baker, 84 Exceptions Timely and Specifi C With regard to exceptions taken at the trial, the bill must further show that they and the objec- Ind 597; Indianapolis, etc, RCo v Pugh, 85 Ind 279; Thomson v Madi- son Bld g, etc, Asso C, 103 Ind 279; Bottenberg v Nixon, 97 Ind 106; Cloy v Clark, 76 Ind 161; Delphi v Lowery, 74 Ind 520; Cressler v Wil- liams, 80 Ind 366; Cox v Rash, 82 Ind 519; Wabash, etc, RCo v Tretts, 96 Ind 450; Riggenberg -v Hartman, 102 Ind 537; Keene v Russell, 80 Ind 163; Penn v State, no Ind 95; Ange- vine v Ward, 102 Ind 291; Leverich v State, 105 Ind 277; Fellenger v Van Valzah, 95 Ind 128; Railsback v Greve, 58 Ind 72; Brownlee v Hare, 64 Ind 311; Hammen v Sexton, 69 Ind 37; Fouty v Morrison, 73 Ind 333; Morris v Stern, 80 Ind 227; French v State, 81 Ind 151; Shimer v Butler University, 87 Ind 218; Ingel v Scott, 86 Ind 518; Ohio, etc, RCo, v Nickless, 73 Ind 382 KentucKy Adwell v Co M, 17B Mo N (Ky) 316; Reed v Co M, 7 Bush (Ky) 641; Burns v Co M, 3 Mete (Ky) 14 Maine Johnson v Day, 78 Me 224; Ruggles v Coffin, 70 Me 468 Marylan d Duval v Duval, 21 Md 149; Cecil Bank v Heald, 25 Md 562 Massachusett S Baker v Gavitt, 128 Mas S 93; New Haven, etc, Co v Campbell, 128 Mas S 104; Bell v Walsh, 130 Mas S 163; Simmons v Lawrence Duck Co, 133 Mas S 298; Ayling v Kramer, 133 Mas S 12; Learned v Hall, 133 Mas S 417; Eagan v Luby, 133 Mas S 543; Petty v Allen, 134 Mas S 265; Smith v Colby, 136 Mas S 562; Lynch v Peabody, 137 Mas S 92 Michiga N Ready v Kearsley, 14 Mich 215; Maclean v Scripps, 52 Mich 215 Compare McBride v Cicotte, 4 Mich 478; Turner v Grand Rapids, 20 Mich 390 Mississipp I Patterson v Phillips, I How (Mis S) 572; Harris v Planters' Bank, 7 How (Mis S) 346 Missour I Wilson v Haxby, 76 Mo 345; Waller v Hannibal, etc, RCo, 83 Mo 608; State v Greenwade, 72 Mo 298; Welsh v Monks, 12 Mo App 579; Hart v Walker, 31 Mo 26; Spurgeon v West, 23 Mo App 43; Keiler v Rei d 9 Mo App 580 Texa S Davis v State, 75 Tex 420; Hopps v State, 44 Tex 355 Washingto N Hartigan v Terri- tory, i Wash Ter 447 Wisconsi N Knox v Cleveland, 13 Wi S 245; Stadler v Grieben, 61 Wi S 500; Saukville v Grafton, 68 Wi S 192 United State S Sutherland v Round, 57 Fed Rep 467 Case Tried without Jur Y So, on ap- peal from a decision in a case tried by the court without a jury, there is nothing for the appellate court to review where the bill of exceptions shows no exception to a finding of the court, no proposition of law sub- mitted to the court, no exception to judgment rendered, and no rulings on admissibility of evidenc e Roblin v Yaggy, 35 111 App 538 Insufficient Exceptio N A recital in the bill of exceptions that the appel- lants " objected to the 5th volume of Porter's Reports, which was offered and read in evidence, * * * being read for the purpose of proving any fact or facts; but the court overruled their objection and they excepted," held, insufficient to show that the volume was read in evidence for the purpose of proving any facts what- eveRBartee v, James, 33 Ala 24 Note in Margi N It is not sufficient to merely note an objection to instruc- tions on the margin of the bill, where nothing further is shown in the bill itself as to when or by whom the note was mad e Bolan v State, 40 Ark 459 Where Unnecessar Y The bill of ex- ceptions must show an exception only where the ruling of the court is based upon extrinsic matter which does not, unless embodied in a bill of exceptions, make a part of the recor d Baker v People, 105 111 454; Gallimore z/Dazey, 12 111 143; Safford [v Vail, 22 111 327 See v Where Bill Required, supr A Inadvertent Exception S Where the record shows an adjudication of a decision manifestly opposite to that stated in an exception prepared by counsel, and signed inadvertently by court it will not be considere d Lowe- ree v Newark, 38 N J L 157 Omission Correcte d In Clarke v Dutcher, 9 Co W ( N Y) 677, the extra- ordinary ruling was made that where a bill of exceptions contained a decision of the court on a point as to the statute of limitations raised by counsel on the trial, but omitted the usual conclusion, tions on which they are based were taken in due time, 1 and that they were specifi C 2 By Whom Take N As it may be important that the appellate court have information on the subject, the bill of exceptions should show by whom exceptions noted were take N 3 "to which opinion of the said court the counsel for the said George did then and there except," it would be deemed a matter of accident in draw- ing up or copying the bill of excep- tions, as the matter otherwise would have been irrelevant.

Autor of the post: Undefined

(U S) 651; Sheppard v Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 0:11:33 +0000
The general doctrine is clearly contr A Judgment S Where the bill of ex- ceptions fails to show either an excep- tion to the judgment or a motion fora new trial the appellate court will not review it. Griftuh v Welsh, 32 111 App 397; Everett -v Collinsville Zinc Co, 41 111 App 553; Roblin z/ Yaggy, 35 111 App 538; Gould v Howe, 127 111 252; Cook County v Calumet Canal, etc, Co, 131 111 511 1 Indiana Doe v Makepeace, 8 Blackf (Ind) 575; Leyner v State, 8 Ind 490; Johnson v Bell, 10 Ind 363; State v Rabourn, 14 Ind 300; Cran- dall v Auburn First Nat Bank, 61 Ind 349; Sohn v Marion, etc, Gravel Road Co, 73 Ind 77; Jones v Van Patten, 3 Ind 107; Kendel v Judah, 63 Ind 291 Michiga N Turner v Grand Rapids, 20 Mich 390 VirginiaPowell v Tarry, 77 Va 250 Wisconsi N Getty v Rountree, 2 Pi N (Wi S) 389; Borah v Martin, 2 Pi N (Wi S) 401; Weeks v School DiSt No 6, 8 Wi S 166; Merwins v O'Day, 9 Wi S, 156; Emmons v Dowe, 2 Wi S 322 United State S Walton v U S, 9 Wheat. (U S) 651; Sheppard v Wil- son, 6 How (U S) 260; Poole v Fleeger, n Pet (U S) 185; Turner v Yates, 16 How (U S) 14; Brown v Clarke, 4 How (U S) 4; Pacific Ex- press Co v Malin, 132 U S 531 2 Alabama Irvin v State, 50 Ala 181; Cohen v State, 50 Ala 108; Jacobson v State, 55 Ala, 151; Cald- well v Farmer, 56 Ala 405; Hol- land v Barnes, 53 Ala 83; Bernstein v Humes, 60 Ala 582; Gray v State, 63 Ala 66; Smith v Sweeney, 69 Ala 524; Stovall v Fowler, 72 Ala 77; Farley v State, 72 Ala 170; Sharp v .

Autor of the post: Undefined

Where a party complains Post Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:53:19 +0000
Robe-rtson, 76 Ala 343; Mayberry v Leech, 58 Ala 339; Chamberlain v Masterson, 29 Ala 299; Birmingham v Rumsey, 63 Ala 352; Dickey v State, 68 Ala 508; McGehee v State, 52 Ala 224; Kilpatrick v Pickens County, 66 Ala 422; Williams v State, 68 Ala 551; Woods v State, 76 Ala 35; Reynolds v State, 68 Ala 502; Boswell v State, 63 Ala 307; Sacket v McCord, 23 Ala 851 Indiana Leyner v State, 8 Ind 490; Jones v Van Patten, 3 Ind 107; Pace v Oppenheim, 12 Ind 533; Zehnor v Beard, 8 Ind 96; Angevine v Ward, 66 Ind 460; Stump v Fraley, 7 Ind 679; Wiler v Manley, 51 Ind 169; Richardson v Howk, 45 Ind 451; Mc- Kinney v Shaw, etc, Mfg Co, 51 Ind 219; Corey v Rhinehart, 7 Ind 290; State v Bartlett, 9 Ind 569; Jolly v Terre Haute Drawbridge Co, 9 Ind 417; Cobb v Krutz,4O Ind 323 Massachusett S Armour v Pecker, 123 Mas S 143; Curry v Porter, 125 Mas S 94; Dwyer v Fuller, 144 Mas S 420 Missour I Holmes v Braidwood, 82 Mo 610 New Jerse Y Packard v Bergen Neck RCo, 54!*. J L 229; Kalbfleisch v Standard Oil Co, 43 N J L 259; Loweree v Newark, 38 N J L 151; Associates, etc, v Davison, 29 N J L 415 New York Millard v Warren, 17 Wen d ( N Y)257; Graham v Chrys- tal, 2 Keyes ( N Y)2i; Keene v Clark, 2 Abb Pr N S ( N Y SupeRCt) 341; Van Amringe v Barnett, 8 Bosw ( N Y) 357; Harlow v Humiston, 6 Co W ( N Y) 189 United State S Northern Pac RCo v Chorless, 51 Fed Rep 562; Marion Phosphate Co v Cummer, 60 Fed Rep 873; The Francis Wright, 105 U S 381; Lincoln -v Claflin, 7 Wal L (U S) 132 Findin g So each distinct propo- sition involved in a finding excepted to on the ground that it is not justified by the evidence should be separately specified in the bill of exception S Baird v Peall, 92Cal235 3 Wickenkamp v Wickenkamp, 5 The Fact S So the facts upon which the action of the court below was based must be set forth in the bill of exceptions distinctly and in proper ordeR1 72 111 92; Shedd v Dalzell, 30 111 App 356 Construction of Bil L Where a bill of exceptions recited that a party " ob- jected " to a ruling of the trial court immediately thereafter and plainly for the purpose of review in the appellate court, the word will be held synony- mous with "excepte d" Ekner v Su- preme Lodge, 97 Mo 640 When not Considere d Exceptions certified by the trial judge not to have been taken or saved on the trial will not be reviewe d Brown v Abing- ton Sav Bank, 119 Mas S 69 Exceptions appearing in the printed record, but found to be stricken out of the bill of exceptions as returned, will be presumed not to have been taken at all, unless it is shown that the re- turn has been tampered wit H Atkin- son v Morse, 57 Mich 276 1 Alabama Morris v State, 25 Ala 57; McElhaney v State, 24 Ala 71; Doe v Godwin, 30 Ala 242; Wil- son v Calvert, 18 Ala 274; Johnson v Ballew, 2 Port (Ala) 29 Arkansa S Potter v State, 42 Ark 29 California Kelly v Murphy, 70 Ca L 560; Caldwell v Parks, 50Cal502 Florida Horn v Gartman, I Fla 73; Commyns v Latimer, 2 Fla 71; Gladden v State, 12 Fla 562; Pennry v Holmes, 13 Fla 579; Parsons v Baxter, 13 Fla 580; Dibble v Truluck, ii Fla 135; Tompkins v Eason, 8 Fla 14; Fash v Clark, 8 Fla 16; Burk v, Clark, 8 Fla 9; Livingston v Cooper, 22 Fla 292; Blige v State, 20 Fla 742 Georgia Justices, etc, v Monroe, 21 Ga 174 Indiana Kennedy v Shaw, 38 Ind 474; Berlin v Oglesbee, 65 Ind 308; Johnson v State, 65 Ind 269 Kansa S McCreary v Cockrill, 3 Ka N 37 Louisiana State v Jackson, 12 La An N 679 Massachusett S Co M v Gilson, 128 Mas S 425; Co M v Sargent, 129 Mas S 115; Horton v Cooley, 135 Mas S 589; O'Neil v Wolffsohn, 137 Mas S 134; Whitehead, etc, Mac H Co v Ryder, 139 Mas S 366; Wilson v Lawrence, 139 Mas S 318 Missour I Murphy v Jones, 7 Mo App 570 New Jerse Y Moran v Green, 21 N J L 562; Petre v State, 35 N J L 64; Oliver v Phelps, 21 N J L 597 Ohio Mathews v Leaman, 24 Ohio St 615; Cooper v State, 16 Ohio St 328 Orego N State v Clements, 15 Ore- gon 237 Texa S Hooper v State, 29 Tex App 614; Davis v State, 14 Tex App 645; Walker v State, 9 Tex App 200; Henning v State, 24 Tex App 315; Thompson v State, 29 Tex App 208; Burton v Anderson, i Tex 96; Coch- ran v Kellum, 4 Tex 121; Linn v Montross, 5 Tex 511; Baldwin v Dear- born, 21 Tex 447; McGaughey v Bendy, 27 Tex 534; Sadler z Ander- son, 17 Tex 245; Franklin -v Tiernan, 62 Tex 96; Henry v Whitaker, 82 Tex 5; Courtnay v Gee, 61 Tex 217 See Xv 2 Construction and Effect, infr A VirginiaNewsum v Newsum, I Leigh ( Va) 86; Voss v Co M, 3 Leigh ( Va) 786; Johnson v Jennings, 10 Gratt ( Va) I United State S Phoenix L In S Co v Raddin, 120 U S 183 In Associates, etc, v Davison, 29 N J L 418, it was said: " The bill must show that the precise point of which a review is sought was made by the counsel, presented to the mind of the court, and decided before the bill was seale d" Denial of Bight. Where a party complains that a right has been de- nied him on the trial, it is his duty to take such a bill of exceptions as will show what he proposed to do and what the judge refused to permit him to d O Moss v Cameron, 66 Tex 412 Discretio N Where a discretionary ruling is brought up for review, all the facts showing an abuse of discretion must be show N State v Chariot, 8 Ro b ( La) 529 Appeal Bond S Where an appeal bond is approved nunc pro tune after expiration of the time for filing, the bill of exceptions must show a legal order of the court extending the time and the grounds therefoREttelson v Jacobs, 40 111 App 427 Facts shown by Recor d But this rule is subject to the modifica- tion that if the facts by which it is sought to show error in the court below appear by the record proper, they need not be set out in the bill of exception S 1 6 Unnecessary Matter S But the appellant should not incorpo- rate immaterial and unessential matters in the bill of exception S 2 Other Illustration S Where a plain- tiff appeals in an action of trespass quare clausum on the ground that the instructions allowed defendant to prevail, although the locus was not de- scribed in the writ, enough of the case must be presented in the writ to show that such a position was taken at the trial and that the locus was not so de- scribe d Woodward v Robinson, 67 Me 565 Venu e The bill of exceptions must state in what court or county the case was tried, or it will be dismisse d English v Bryan, 66 Ga 574 Theory of Cas e The theory of the case should be clearly shown by the bill of exceptions and the issues clearly stated therei N Maybee v Tregent, 47 Mich 495 Documents on the Argument.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Hardee v Lovett, 85 Post Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:43:06 +0000
State- ments and papers whose use by coun- sel in his argument before the jury is objected to must be brought up in the bil L Winkler v State, 32 Ark Action by AdministratoRA recital, in an action by an administrator, in the bill that " the plaintiff proved his demand as administrator " shows suf- ficiently that his letters of administra- tion were rea d Bell v Andrews, 34 Ala 538 Motions Subsequent to Verdi Ct All the evidence used in the proceed- ings below and upon the motions sub- sequent to the verdict should be em- bodied in and form part of a bill of exceptions, to enable the court to re- view the M Carter v State, 20 Fla Disqualification of Judg e The dis- qualification of the trial judge to hold court in the cause must be shown by the bill of exception S Kahanek v Galveston, etc, RCo, 72 Tex 476 Arguments of Counse L So a bill of exceptions to the refusal of the court to permit counsel to read from a legal authority or work of science must show what it was and how much the counsel proposed to read, in order that the court may see whether it was pertinent, and whether the counsel proposed to confine the reading within reasonable limit S Wade v De Witt, 20 Tex 398 Injunctio N The court cannot re- view the order of a trial court dissolv- ing an injunction upon a complaint unless the ground of the action is stated in the bil L Gould v House, 40 Ind 403 1 Carter v Pickard, n Ala 673; Jones v Jones, 42 Ala 218; Watson v Stone, 40 Ala 451; Foster v State, 39 Ala 229: Martin v Harrison, 50 la d 270; Moore v State, 65 Ind 213; Hunter v Hatfield, 68 Ind 416; Stanley v Smith, 15 Oregon 505; Demske v Hunter, 23 Mo App 466; Furber v Conway, 23 Mo App 412; McNeil v Home In S Co, 30 Mo App 306 See also v and V I, Where Bill Acquired, and Where Bill is Not Acquired, supr A 2 Alabama Tyree v Parham, 66 Ala 424; Smith v State, 68 Ala 424; Weems v Weem S 69 Ala 104 California Renn v Samos, 42 Tex 104; Wetherbee v Carroll, 33Cal549 Georgia Papot v Gibson, 7 Ga 529; Carey v Giles, 10 Ga I Illinoi S Trustees of Schools v Welchley, 19 111 64 New Jerse Y Dodge v State, 24 N J L 455- United State S Zeller v Eckert, 4 Ho W (U S) 297 Arguments of Counse L The argument of counsel on questions raised during the trial and the remarks of the court in assigning reasons for its rulings should not be include d Clough v State, 7 Neb 328 Former Adjudicatio N Where a for- mer adjudication between the same parties was set up in defense of an ac- tion and found against the defendant, the bill of exceptions will be sufficient if it contains all the evidence relating to the former suit. Howell v Good- rich, 69 111 556 Opinions of Jur Y Opinions of the jury on points preliminary to their- verdict and which they were not re- This rule is for the protection of the appellate court, whose con- venience and need require that the record should not be uselessly encumbered, and only enough should be included in the bill of ex- ceptions to show all the circumstances constituting erroR1 Care quired by law to find cannot be in- cluded in the bill of exception S Davies v Selby, I M g 473 View of Premise S The impression made upon the minds of the jurors does not constitute a part of the evi- dence in a cause and need not be shown in the bill of exception S Heady v Vevay, etc, Turnpike Co, 52 Ind 117; Gagg v Vetter, 41 Ind 228; Jeffersonville, etc, RCo v Bowen, 40 Ind 545, overruling Evansville, etc, RCo v Cochran, 10 Ind 560; Close v Samm, 27 Iowa Instruction S So the entire charge should not be include d Only the parts to which the exceptions relate should be embodied therei N U S v Rindskopf, 105 U S 418; Lincoln v Claflin, 7 Wal L (U S) 132 See VI I I I The Charge, infr A In Maryland, where a rule of court expressly required only necessary matters to be included, a judge may refuse to sign a bill of exceptions needlessly encumbered with matter not relevant to the error alleged, and may require superfluous matters to be elide d Davis v State, 38 Md 15 Missour I Under the practice of Missouri the respondent may take up his bill of exceptions setting out the evidence in full where the appellant's record states that evidence tending to prove the issue was introduced, and where the question as to the sufficiency of the evidence is raised the two bills will be considered togetheRStoeck- man v Terre Haute, etc, RCo, 15 Mo App 503 Georgia The Act of 1889 affecting the mode of bringing up cases to the Supreme Court authorizes the plain- tiff to bring such parts of th e record only as are designated in the bill of exceptions, not the whole record; and it cannot be designated in general terms as material, since this is no specification of part S Without the re- quired specification the bill of excep- tions cannot be duly certified by the judge nor the transcripts be authenti- cated by the clerk, nor can the speci- fication be enlarged or supplied by amendment in the Supreme Court. Hardee v Lovett, 85 Ga 620 Cost S Where a bill of exceptions is unnecessarily brought up or where a separate bill of exceptions to a decree is filed on appeal from a motion grant- ing a new trial by which the decree has fallen, the plaintiff in error must pay the costs therefoRSharp v Findley, 71 Ga 668 1 Arkansa S Danley v Edwards, I Ark 443 Michiga N Cole v Circuit Judge, 77 Mich 619; Welch v Palmer, 85 Mich 310; Finch v Karste, 97 Mich 20; Turner v Grand Rapids, 20 Mich 390; Smith S Barstow,2Doug L (Mich) 155', Continental In S Co v Horton, 28 Mich 173; People v Judge, 32 Mich 259; Frankenberg v Decatur First Nat Bank, 33 Mich 46; Snyder v Willey, 33 Mich 483; Rice v Rice, 50 Mich 448 Mississipp I Muirhead z/Muirhead, 8 Smed M (Mis S) 211 Missour I Wallace v Boston, 10 Mo 660 Nebraska Dietrichs v Lincoln, etc, RCo, 12 Neb 225 New York Marckwald v Oceanic Steam Nav Co, 8 Hun ( N Y) 547; Tweed v Davis, 4 Thom P C ( N Y) 6; Price v Powell, 3 N Y 322; Ex p Jones, 8 Co W ( N Y) 123; Peo- ple v Dalton, 15 Wen d ( N Y) 581; Denison v Seymour, 5 Wen d ( N Y) 103; Hartung v People, 4 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y)3i g Orego N Eaton v Oregon R, etc, Co, 22 Oregon 497; State v Murray, ii Oregon 414; Tucker v Salem Flouring Mills Co, 15 Oregon 584; Janeway v Holston, 19 Oregon 97; Fiore v Ladd, 22 Oregon 202; State v Drake, n Oregon 396; White v School DiSt No 5 (Oregon, 1892), 30 Pa C Rep 313 United State S Zeller v Eckert, 4 Ho W (U S) 297; Johnston v Jones, i Black (U S) 210; Lincoln v Claf- lin, 7 Wal L (U S) 136; Lees v U S, 150 U S 476; Grand Trunk RCo v Ives, 144 U S 408 Documentary Evidenc e Accordingly documentary evidence upon which no should be taken, however, to include matter sufficient to exclude the presumption of the correctness of the judgment attaching when a fact essential to the review of the question raised is omitte d 1 See article APPEALS, XL Presumptions on Appeal, Vo L I I, p 420 7 The Evidence A IN GENERA L Where the question raised for review depends in any wise upon the evidence, such evidence must be incorporated in the bill of exceptions, or the point will 1 Alabama Southern Mut In S Co v Holcombe, 35 Ala 327 Florida Seymour v Creswell, 18 Fla 29; Baker v Chatfield, 23 Fla 540; Reed v State, 16 Fla 564; Dor- man v Bigelow, I Fla 323; Bailey z Clark, 6 Fla 516; Mitchell v Chaires, 2 Fla 18; Horn v Gartman, i Fla 73; Frisbee v Timanus, 12 Fla 537; Dibble v Truluck, n Fla 135; Union Bank v Call, 5 Fla 409; Pons v Hart, 5 Fla 457; Proctor v Hart, 5 Fla 465; Burk -v Clark, 8 Fla 9; Pa- latka, etc, RCo v State, 23 Fla 546 .

Autor of the post: Undefined

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 266 | 267 | 268

mail to: pirton@mail.ru